We’ve commented several times recently on the increasing scrutiny courts are giving to class action settlements generally, and to attorney fee awards in particular. A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, although it ultimately upholds the award, reflects that this is still a troublesome area and less than entirely predictable for any of the parties.

In Laguna v. Coverall North America, Inc., Case No. 12-55479 (9th Cir. June 3, 2014), the defendant ran a janitorial franchising company. The persons performing the actual janitorial work did so under franchise agreements and were classified as “franchisees,” not employees. Once source of discontent appeared to stem from the manner in which customers were assigned to current franchisees. The plaintiffs brought suit under California law contending that they were employees, not independent contractors, and also asserted various breaches of the franchise agreements. The case was litigated for two years, and was settled for largely equitable relief. That relief involved (a) assignment of customer accounts to current franchisees subject to payment of the franchise fees; (b) a single payment of $475 in cash to each former franchisee; (c) a $750 credit for past franchisees towards future new franchise; and (d) some rights for newer franchisees to rescind their franchise agreements. The franchisees had to submit a claim to take advantage of the benefits, and approximately 119 did so, comprising the majority of the then current franchisees. (Apparently there were between 750 and 1500 potential class members – the trial court notes the lack of certainty – but most were former franchisees). The settlement also provided for nearly $1,000,000 in attorney fees, or roughly one third of the hours times rate “lodestar” figure.

So, did anyone, other than the plaintiffs at their jobs, clean up?

There wasn’t much resistance to the settlement. There were but two opt-outs. There were no timely objections. In a classic case of no good deed going unpunished, however, the trial court allowed consideration of a single untimely objection, which was in fact the only objection, in 2011. When the court approved the settlement over the untimely objection, that objector then appealed. Enter two and one half years of delay.

Based on the district court’s decision, there were very good reasons for the plaintiffs to settle. To begin with, the franchise agreements apparently contained arbitration agreements with class limitations. At the time the suit was filed, the Ninth Circuit authority was unfavorable to their enforcement, but by the approval hearing the United States Supreme Court had rendered its decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). The district court opinion also reflects a favorable ruling for the company in a similar Massachusetts case, as well as issues involving the company’s ability to pay a large verdict. Although the settlement resolved all claims, reading between the lines it appears designed to improve the franchisor-franchisee relationship, something which would seem to have a long-term benefit for the class members, particularly present franchisees.

While the objector objected to the settlement generally, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion focuses primarily on the attorney fee issue and the question of whether a million-dollar fee was appropriate for a settlement where the relief was primarily equitable. Finding injunctive relief hard to quantify, the district court and Ninth Circuit resorted to a “lodestar” formula. Under that formula, the plaintiffs incurred nearly $3,000,000 in fees, but received only $1,000,000. The court, appropriately, refused to tie the amount of fees to some percentage of an estimate of the value of the equitable relief, and refused to find that the court had to make specific findings of fact about the value of the injunctive relief. It isn’t hard to understand this result as the parties had widely divergent views over the value of the proposed equitable remedies.

The Ninth Circuit also disposed of other challenges to the settlement. It found that the settlement was not invalidated because of the claim procedure or due to the existence of a reversion. It also held that the district court could properly require that objectors be subject to deposition, dismissing arguments that such discovery could be used as a tool to discourage objections.

Two Ninth Circuit judges made up the minority, but the third judge on the panel, a district judge from Northern California, dissented. The dissent’s arguments were not insubstantial. It pointed out that the injunctive relief primarily benefited current franchisees, not past ones. It recognized that injunctive relief might be hard to calculate, but sought a more robust effort to make some valuation determination. It questioned the administrative process, particularly for past franchisees, and noted a relatively low response rate, around 9%, for what it perceived to be a straightforward calculation. Ultimately, in a long footnote, the majority noted that these arguments, while perhaps valid in one sense, did not rise to the level of demonstrating an abuse of discretion.

The Laguna decision is more significant for what it reflects than what it holds. First, a settlement reached in 2011 was held up until 2014 based on a single untimely objector. Keep in mind that the relief was primarily equitable, meaning that likely dozens of class members had wanted and expected relief on customer assignments, relief that, at a minimum, was delayed. Second, the case reflects continued hand-wringing over deciding attorney fees when the amount recovered is small or, in this instance, primarily in the form of equitable relief. Third, the court recognized that terms such as claim processes and reversions may raise questions, but simply warrant further explanation and should not scuttle an otherwise reasonable settlement.

The Bottom Line: Courts have some difficulty in evaluating the reasonableness of attorney fees awards in settlements providing primarily equitable relief.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.